Non‐invasive left ventricular myocardial work indices in healthy adolescents at rest

Global myocardial work (GMW) provides a metric of left ventricular (LV) function and energy consumption. Its non-invasive assessment by echocardiography correlates with invasive measures and normal values have been reported in healthy adults. We aimed to establish normal values in a healthy adolescent population. Fifty-two healthy adolescents (mean age?=?14.5?±?2.0 years, range 11–19 years, 62% male) with normal echocardiograms were included. Brachial cuff blood pressure was obtained immediately following apical imaging in the supine position. Post-processing of echocardiograms for speckle tracking strain measurement and derivation of global myocardial work indices from LV pressure–strain loops was performed. The mean global work index (GWI) was 1802.0?±?264.4 mmHg% with mean global work efficiency of 95.5?±?1.1%. The mean global constructive work (GCW) was 2054.5?±?297.3 mmHg%, and the mean global wasted work 83.8?±?28.1 mmHg%. On multivariable analysis, there were significant associations between both GWI and GCW with systolic blood pressure (β coefficient?=?0.57, p?<?0.001; β coefficient?=?0.67, p?<?0.001 respectively) and LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) (β coefficient = ? 0.56, p?<?0.001; β coefficient = ? 0.52, p?<?0.001 respectively). There were no associations with any of the work indices with age, sex, body surface area, heart rate or LV ejection fraction. This study provides echocardiographic reference ranges for non-invasive indices of GMW in normal adolescents.

     

Moving in the “right” direction: exposing subclinical right ventricular disease with exercise in patients with systemic sclerosis

The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging -     

The effect of antecolic versus retrocolic reconstruction on delayed gastric emptying after classic non–pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy

Background

Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreaticoduodenectomy increases length of hospital stay and costs, and may be influenced by surgical techniques.

Methods

We retrospectively compared 400 patients with antecolic gastrojejunostomy with 400 patients with retrocolic gastrojejunostomy for the occurrence of DGE.

Results

The prevalence of DGE was 15% in the antecolic group and 21% in the retrocolic group (P = .021), and median length of stay was shorter for the former (8 vs 10 days, P = .001). The difference was statistically significant with grade A DGE (9% vs 14%, P = .038), but not B or C. In a multivariate analysis, DGE was influenced by retrocolic reconstruction, as well as older age, chronic pancreatitis, preoperative bilirubin level, a history of previous upper abdominal surgery, and postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Conclusions

An antecolic gastrojejunostomy for classic non–pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy is associated with a lower incidence of mild DGE (grade A) and a shorter length of stay.     

Kaplan-Meier Survival Analysis Overestimates the Risk of Revision Arthroplasty: A Meta-analysis

Background

Although Kaplan-Meier survival analysis is commonly used to estimate the cumulative incidence of revision after joint arthroplasty, it theoretically overestimates the risk of revision in the presence of competing risks (such as death). Because the magnitude of overestimation is not well documented, the potential associated impact on clinical and policy decision-making remains unknown.

Questions/purposes

We performed a meta-analysis to answer the following questions: (1) To what extent does the Kaplan-Meier method overestimate the cumulative incidence of revision after joint replacement compared with alternative competing-risks methods? (2) Is the extent of overestimation influenced by followup time or rate of competing risks?

Methods

We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, and Web of Science (1946, 1980, 1980, and 1899, respectively, to October 26, 2013) and included article bibliographies for studies comparing estimated cumulative incidence of revision after hip or knee arthroplasty obtained using both Kaplan-Meier and competing-risks methods. We excluded conference abstracts, unpublished studies, or studies using simulated data sets. Two reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated the quality of reporting of the included studies. Among 1160 abstracts identified, six studies were included in our meta-analysis. The principal reason for the steep attrition (1160 to six) was that the initial search was for studies in any clinical area that compared the cumulative incidence estimated using the Kaplan-Meier versus competing-risks methods for any event (not just the cumulative incidence of hip or knee revision); we did this to minimize the likelihood of missing any relevant studies. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) comparing the cumulative incidence estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method with the competing-risks method for each study and used DerSimonian and Laird random effects models to pool these RRs. Heterogeneity was explored using stratified meta-analyses and metaregression.

Results

The pooled cumulative incidence of revision after hip or knee arthroplasty obtained using the Kaplan-Meier method was 1.55 times higher (95% confidence interval, 1.43–1.68; p < 0.001) than that obtained using the competing-risks method. Longer followup times and higher proportions of competing risks were not associated with increases in the amount of overestimation of revision risk by the Kaplan-Meier method (all p > 0.10). This may be due to the small number of studies that met the inclusion criteria and conservative variance approximation.

Conclusions

The Kaplan-Meier method overestimates risk of revision after hip or knee arthroplasty in populations where competing risks (such as death) might preclude the occurrence of the event of interest (revision). Competing-risks methods should be used to more accurately estimate the cumulative incidence of revision when the goal is to plan healthcare services and resource allocation for revisions.